Re: What policy for BUG_ON()?

[Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 933 bytes --]

On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 22:15, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Let me try to summarize the different options regarding BUG_ON, 
> concerning whether the argument to BUG_ON might contain side effects, 
> and whether it should be allowed in some "do this only if you _really_ 
> know what you are doing" situations to let BUG_ON do nothing.
> 
> Options:
> 1. BUG_ON must not be defined to do nothing
> 1a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
> 1b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
> 2. BUG_ON is allowed to be defined to do nothing
> 2a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
> 2b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON

since you quoted me earlier my 2 cents:
1) I would prefer BUG_ON() arguments to not have side effects; its just 
cleaner that way. (similar to assert)

2) if one wants to compiel out BUG_ON, I rather alias it to panic() than
to nothing.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]